1.1a I do not know whether it is something in the water,1.1b but Enfield has recently produced constituents1.1c whose cases are of high national importance,1.1d which are challenging legislation, international treaties and guidance.

1.2a I refer, of course, to my constituent Gary McKinnon,1.2b to Andrew Symeou in the neighbouring constituency,1.2c and to Ian Puddick,1.2d the subject of this Adjournment debate.

2.1a I do not wish to entertain the House2.1b with the salacious details of this case,2.1c which are at times complex and at other times bizarre2.1d and, frankly, quite frightening.

2.2a I wish to explore the principles and practice involved in the case,2.2b about which the whole House will no doubt be concerned,2.2c as they are fundamental.

2.3a My primary concern,2.3b which again the whole House doubtless shares,2.3c is with the principle of equality before the law —2.3d the principle that money and wealth should not be used2.3e to warp the course of natural justice,2.3f and that equality should not be eroded2.3g in the age of the internet and super-injunctions,2.3h which [we?] have seen in recent times.

3.1a It is only right for me to start3.1b by explaining some of the details of my constituent’s case.

3.2a In June 2009,3.2b Mr Puddick became aware3.2c that his wife was having an affair with her employer,3.2d who is a board member of a large reinsurance firm.

3.3a He found on her phone explicit text messages from this man,3.3b which then led to his wife’s confession3.3c that the affair had been ongoing for some 10 years.

3.4a In his emotional state,3.4b my constituent began calling clients of this large firm,3.4c informing them that their manager had used company expenses3.4d to fund an affair with another employee.

3.5a When the manager concerned became aware of this,3.5b he hired a private security firm,3.5c linked to his organisation,3.5d to discredit my constituent3.5e and to build a case of harassment against him.

3.6a Mr Puddick received a phone call3.6b from the chief executive of the security firm,3.6c who reportedly said,3.6d “Our pockets are deep…we will bury you”.

3.7 How was he buried?

4.1a In August the same year,4.1b my constituent’s home, office and his company accountants4.1c were raided by 16 officers4.1d from the City of London police counter terrorism and major crimes directorate.

4.2a They removed his personal computers, his mobile phones, laptops, digital cameras4.2b and even his personal sat-nav 4.2c and sent all this equipment to a high-technology crime laboratory for testing.

5.1a My constituent was subsequently arrested5.1a and decided not to have a lawyer.

5.2a He then gave a full and frank confession5.2a that he made those phone calls to clients5.2a and he apologised for it.

5.3a He was then charged5.3b and stringent police bail conditions were attached.

5.4a On the first occasion he attended court,5.4b the bail conditions were relaxed5.4c as it became immediately apparent5.4d that my constituent was a man of good character5.4e and not likely to commit any act of violence or to make any threats.

5.5a The court realised5.5b that the case needed to be dealt with proportionately.

6.1a I understand from my constituent that,6.1b to the surprise of the magistrates,6.1c when the officers were asked about the evidence6.1d that provided the basis for this case of harassment,6.1e it became clear6.1f that my constituent’s wife had not even provided a statement.

6.2a Despite all the extreme, disproportionate and expensive investigations that had gone on,6.2b which seemed to suggest a major crime,6.2c the one witness statement that one would have expected to have been brought forward,6.2d did not materialise.

6.3a Any right-minded person listening to the debate —6.3b and certainly those listening at the back of the court6.3c at which Mr Puddick first came into the public gaze —6.3d would have questioned why this was happening.

7.1 A trial was set for April the following year.

7.2a Before that date,7.2b the man who had had an affair with Mr Puddick’s wife,7.2c resigned from his position,7.2d and the case was dropped.

7.2e One might have thought that that would be the end of it,7.2f and that there would simply have been complaints7.2g to the Police Complaints Authority Independent Police Complaints Commission —7.2h as, indeed, there were —7.2i which would have been processed in the usual way.

8.1a If the case had ended in that way,8.1b we would not have ended up discussing it here8.1c at 4.15 on a Thursday afternoon,8.1d but Mr Puddick was rightly appalled by what had happened,8.1e and particularly concerned about the disproportionate actions8.1f that he felt had been taken by the police.

8.2a For reasons of his own,8.2b which one may understand,8.2c and with which one may feel a great deal of sympathy,8.2d he set up a blog —8.2e www.ianpuddick.com —8.2f to which he uploaded a love letter that had been sent to his wife,8.2g as well as a video describing the disproportionate response of the police8.2h and questioning the actions of the private security firm.

8.3a Entries to the website www.policeexpenses.com and other similar addresses8.3b were redirected to the original blog.

9.1a What then happened, in May 2010,9.1b seemed to my constituent to have come out of nowhere.

9.2a He was arrested again,9.2b this time not by local detectives9.2c but by the City of London police murder squad.

9.3a He was told by investigating officers9.3b that he could not put that information on the internet.

9.4 He replied, “I am just putting out information that is true.”

9.5a The response from the police,9.5b which might be considered chilling by anyone concerned about freedom of speech,9.5c was, apparently,9.5d “Even if it is completely true,9.5e you have committed a criminal offence.”

10.1a Mr Puddick was subsequently charged, again, with harassment,10.1b but on this occasion on the specific grounds10.1c that he had created and distributed three websites10.1d which were designed to discredit an individual both professionally and personally.

10.2a He denied all the allegations,10.2b and the case went to the magistrates court in June this year.

10.3a It was put to the magistrates10.3b that Mr Puddick was guilty of harassment through Facebook, Twitter and his websites,10.3c and it was partly because of those extra allegations10.3d that the case made national headlines.

10.4a However, it was proved in court through cross-examination at an early stage10.4b that there had been no use of Facebook or Twitter.

11.1a I understand that an officer from City of London police offered the explanation11.1b that the counter-terrorism and murder squads had been called11.1c because of the level of distress11.1d that she believed my constituent was causing through his websites

11.2a One can only speculate, looking at other websites,11.2b on whether such distress11.2c constitutes grounds for using the precious and important resources11.2d of the counter-terrorism and murder squads.

11.3a I am glad that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice,11.3b my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert)11.3c is present to note my concern in that regard.

11.4a My constituent was finally found not guilty of the charge of harassment11.4b on 17 June this year.

12.1a Having listened to that extraordinary tale,12.1b some may believe that it involves a purely operational issue12.1c which really belongs on the pages of the tabloids —12.1d where it did indeed appear in this instance —12.1e rather than in the Chamber.

12.2a However, as I said at the outset,12.2b there is a key point of principle:12.2c the principle of equality before the law.

12.3a As my constituent has stated on numerous occasions,12.3b if this could happen to him,12.3c it could happen to anyone.

13.1 I want to raise two key points with the Minister.

13.2a The first is the apparent influence of wealth and authority13.2b on the implementation of the law.

13.3a It seems clear13.3b that had it not been for the well-connected private security company13.3c and the high profile of the business involved,13.3d my constituent would not have experienced13.3e such a disproportionate use of force and response.

13.4a If there is another reason,13.4b no one is aware of it.

13.5a Indeed, it is interesting13.5b that the man who had the affair with Mr Puddick’s wife13.5c was even advised by police in Sussex —13.5d the county where he lives —13.5e that this was a civil,13.5f not a criminal, matter,13.5g and anyone looking at this case would say13.5h that that seems to be a very reasonable judgment to make.

13.6a Despite that,13.6b City of London police were approached13.6c and the raid in May 2009 followed.

13.7a My constituent argues13.7b that the second raid almost a year later,13.7c following the publication of the blog and website,13.7d was also based on information13.7e that came from the private security firm and outside interests.

14.1a We can go back into history —14.1b indeed, all the way back to AD 43,14.1c when there was the first recorded mention of equality before the law,14.1d by Pericles,14.1e and we can then eventually go on to the Magna Carta14.1f and other important integral documents in our constitutional law14.1g that establish that equality before the law is an important principle.14.1h Pericles stated:

15a “If we look to the laws,15b they afford equal justice to all in their private differences []15c class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit”.

16a Those words and our fundamental principles based on the Magna Carta16b and established through international law and treaty obligations16c would seem to be all but forgotten16d when the 16 counter-terrorism officers from City of London police16e raided a residential property16f because, from the point of view of my constituent,16g who is a mere plumber,16h that seemed to be in the interests16i of more powerful and wealthy business interests,16j which were concerned about the effects on reputation16k and sought to challenge the concepts of free speech and the truth.

17.1a One could take a view about the appropriateness17.1b of how my constituent went about this matter.

17.2a One could criticise that17.2b and say that it was not right,17.2c but questions have to be raised about the fact17.2d that those actions were criminalised to the extent that they were,17.2e and that the police decided to act in the way they did,17.2f and used the resources they used -17.2g which is why the matter has come to this Chamber.

17.3 This is a fundamental issue in the wider context of our legal system.

17.4a As a practising lawyer, I have concerns,17.4b but this should be of great concern to all Members.

18.1a I do not need to remind the House18.1b of the recent super-injunction controversy18.1c and the complexity added to that by Twitter18.1d and the open-platform social media that provide a forum.

18.2a The key issue in that debate was not merely the affairs and the scandals,18.2b but the fact that our legal system sought to support,18.2c or some would say protect,18.2d those individuals of some privilege who were able,18.2e through wealth and influence,18.2f to seek to protect their reputations and their future incomes,18.2g regardless in some respects of the consequences18.2h and the human collateral damage.

19.1a It appears that my constituent’s experience is not an isolated one,19.1b since having secured this debate19.1c I was contacted by Dr Howard Fredrics,19.1d who is similarly charged with harassment19.1e because of a website exposing misconduct by officials at Kingston university.

19.2a Even though, as I am also informed,19.2b Kingston police found no evidence of harassment,19.2c the Crown Prosecution Service went ahead with a case against Dr Fredrics,19.2d just as the CPS decided not to take account of Sussex police advice19.2e and a case was mounted against Mr Puddick.

19.3a In both cases the common factor seems to be people and institutions of influence,19.3b and one would have to say19.3c that the concept of the rule of law has been challenged.

19.4a Those are two examples,19.4b but there may be more,19.4c which might have gone unnoticed19.4d because of the under-reporting of magistrates court cases.

19.5a The reason for this debate19.5b is that they should not go unnoticed by this House or the Government.

20.1a The disproportionate response to my constituent’s case20.1b raises fundamental questions,20.1c and we cannot cast them aside as an operational blip.

20.2a The reaction casts a shadow over the way in which we respond to issues,20.2b not least issues of free speech.

20.3a These issues are becoming much more complex,20.3b but they are so important.

20.4a That applies to matters on the internet and online,20.4b and matters outside and offline.

21.1a The issues raised by my constituent’s case,21.1b which relate to free speech21.1c and the way in which the prosecuting authorities deal with enforcement,21.1d particularly in respect of the internet,21.1e are important and of wider significance.

21.2a When dealing with cases of cyber-stalking or online harassment,21.2b it is important to consider how enforcement is applied21.2c and how the guidance really does affect these issues.

22.1a We need to recognise22.1b that there is no suggestion22.1c that Mr Puddick’s comments on his website were untrue.

22.2a The prosecution because of his comments22.2b relied on the argument22.2c that the repetition and spreading of the factual points amounted to harassment.

22.3a It is important for me to make it clear22.3b that I entirely agree with the Government’s policy and approach to this issue.

22.4a The case law and policy make it clear22.4b that harassment is illegal online22.4c as much as it is illegal offline.

22.5a We learn of some awful cases of cyber-stalking,22.5b and they should properly be prosecuted and punishable22.5c with the full force of the criminal law.

22.6a If an individual persistently contacts or attempts to contact a victim22.6b and the court concludes22.6c that that conduct constitutes harassment,22.6d the police need to follow through proportionately22.6e to where the evidence leads them22.6f and a prosecution needs to follow,22.6g where appropriate.

22.7a That should happen regardless22.7b of whether such behaviour occurs in person22.7c or through online social media.

23.1a I recognise that sound guidance is in place23.1b on dealing with cyber-stalking and harassment.

23.2a I invite the Minister to consider, after this debate,23.2b whether that guidance is fit for purpose23.2c and whether it is appropriate,23.2d particularly given how it seems to have been wholly misapplied23.2e in the case of Ian Puddick.

23.3a The Government are rightly examining areas of vulnerability23.3b in respect of young people and those with disabilities,23.3c who need particular protection23.3d when it comes to dealing with the internet.

23.4a We need to recognise23.4b that we have a particularly strong duty to those people,23.4c and it is right that the Government,23.4d in applying the guidance,23.4e are examining those areas.

23.5a We also need to ensure23.5b that the fundamental principle of the equality of the law23.5c is applied across the board.

24.1a As is clear from the account that I have given,24.1b it is clear that the proper guidance24.1c and way to apply that guidance24.1d is far removed from what happened in Mr Puddick’s case.

24.2a He was told that he was not allowed to put up his website24.2b because it, in effect, damaged the reputation of another individual24.2c and that that damage amounted to illegal harassment.

24.3a Since this case has reached the public gaze,24.3b several commentators have remarked24.3c that if Mr Puddick had been found guilty,24.3d the floodgates would have been opened for a number of other such claims.

25.1a I am sure that other hon. Members,25.1b perhaps in an unguarded moment,25.1c would be tempted by the possibility of prosecuting the odd blogger25.1d who wrote an article about them with which they disagreed.

25.2 I have had an attack website constructed against me.

25.3a It is dedicated to opposing me25.3b and, some would say, to damaging my reputation,25.3c and colleagues would doubtless be able25.3d to give examples of different actions that have taken place.

25.4a However, many of us would also recognise25.4b that there is a role and place for the law,25.4c including the civil law —25.4d there is no doubt25.4e that the law on libel and defamation has a role to play.

25.5a I welcome the Government’s review into super-injunctions,25.5b which is examining how we can properly ensure25.5c that our approach25.5d to these whole areas of privacy, and libel and defamation25.5e are made fit for the modern-day purpose.

25.6a I would also welcome a proper look25.6b at the current Crown Prosecution Service guidelines25.6c and how they apply in all the different circumstances.

26.1a I am calling for a level playing field —26.1b the level playing field that has been established over many years26.1c and that this country, rightly, is proud to promote and apply.

26.2a I hope that my constituent’s case will set a precedent26.2b or at least be a marker26.2c to suggest that such websites and blogs should be properly considered26.2d in the context of an appropriate and proportionate application26.2e of guidance in both criminal and civil law.

26.3a It is important that, as online technology develops rapidly,26.3b we ensure26.3c that the Government also allow for proper clarity in their guidance26.3d so that we do not face situations26.3e such as that which sadly caused detriment to Mr Puddick.

27.1 We also need to be particularly watchful when criminal law is involved.

27.2a Cases such as Mr Puddick’s might be rare —27.2b we do not have the exact numbers —27.2c but we need to recognise27.2d that when there is enforcement by the police,27.2e liberty is lost27.2f and other consequences arise,27.2g we must be ever watchful and mindful of the serious repercussions27.2h and how they can chip away at,27.2i or even take a chunk out,27.2j of the fundamental principles that we all hold dear.

28.1a In conclusion,28.1b the issue in this case28.1c is not the affair28.1d that some people might have been interested in reporting on,28.1e and it is not about my constituent and his phone calls to clients.

28.2 This is not about the man or the affair.

28.3a The issue is whether Ian Puddick has made the case28.3b that large companies and private security firms have an influence28.3c that has led to a taxpayer-funded police force28.3d following what some might suggest was a taxpayer-funded crusade.

28.4a Indeed, it was called Operation Bohan —28.4b I am not sure why it was named after Bohan, the son of Rueben —28.4c and the whole operation was dedicated to this case,28.4d seemingly to silence his accusations28.4e because they might harm financial interests.

29.1a One could argue29.1b that if the complaint had been made to the City of London police29.1c by an ordinary member of the public —29.1d say, a plumber like my constituent —29.1e the estimated £1 million would not have been spent29.1f investigating and prosecuting the case.

29.2a It would, I imagine, have been dealt with as a civil matter,29.2b worthy, if the police had been involved,29.2c of a quiet word from them.

29.3a I say that the £1 million is an estimated figure,29.3b and Mr Puddick has been asking questions to find out the true costs.

29.4a If possible, I would be interested in hearing at some point —29.4b I know the answer will not be available today —29.4c how much the police operation and prosecution cost.

30.1a Without any further information,30.1b it would seem30.1c that Operation Bohan flew in the face of the key principle30.1d of equality before the law30.1e by seemingly putting the interests of wealthy organisations30.1f above the free speech30.1g and basic rights of the everyday citizen.

30.2 I do not say those words lightly.

30.3a I have been a criminal solicitor for 14 or so years30.3b and have great respect for the rule of law,30.3c for our system of justice30.3d and for how it is properly applied day in, day out,30.3e by police officers and prosecuting authorities.

30.4a When we see cases that seem exceptional30.4b and that are exceptional in their application of power,30.4c we must stand up for our constituents.

30.5a It is worse for everyone,30.5b not just my constituent,30.5c that the operation was funded by the taxpayer.

30.6a My tax-paying constituents —30.6b all of them —30.6c played their part in paying for the anti-terrorist officers,30.6d the high-technology laboratory30.6e and the extensive surveillance.

30.7a Indeed, they also played a part in the Crown Prosecution Service’s30.7b seemingly doomed attempt to prosecute Mr Puddick.

31.1a My constituent is concerned about what he would call31.1b an apparent perversion of natural justice31.1c that must be identified, addressed and appropriately challenged by Ministers.

31.2a The Government and the Minister are rightly big on accountability31.2b and I fully support that,31.2c but we also need to recognise31.2d that there must be accountability for the actions of the police31.2e and the prosecuting authorities.31.3f They must be brought to account in cases such as Mr Puddick’s31.3g so that we can ensure31.3h that another innocent member of the public31.3i is not awoken by an armed counter-terrorism unit31.3j acting, perhaps, on the whims of wealth and power.

4.35 pm

The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert):

32.1a First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend,32.1b the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes)32.1c on securing the debate,32.1d which it is a pleasure for me to respond to on behalf of the Government.

32.2a I know of his long-standing interest in these issues,32.2b particularly on ensuring that freedom of expression is protected32.2c and I fully understand why he seeks to raise his concerns32.2d about the case of his constituent, Mr Ian Puddick.

32.3a I appreciate that my hon. Friend seeks32.3b to put the case for his constituent very forcefully,32.3c which he has certainly done.

33.1a I know that my hon. Friend understands33.1b that Ministers do not have a role in commenting on or interfering in specific cases,33.1c but it is important to restate that point.

33.2a In this country we have a principle of operational independence for the police33.2b and it is very important33.2c that Ministers do not seek to direct police investigations33.2d or to comment on them improperly.

33.3a However, it is also very important33.3b that we have a proper system of accountability33.3c for the police and their actions 33.3d in relation to the law and more widely.

33.4 I will return to that point.

33.5a I am afraid that I cannot therefore comment33.5b on the legal aspects of this individual case,33.5c but I understand that the City of London police33.5d took the allegation of harassment against Mr Puddick very seriously33.5e and that it was investigated in line with national procedures.

34.1a I also understand34.1b that the City of London police received a complaint last September34.1c relating to the conduct of officers34.1d involved in Mr Puddick’s arrest on suspicion of harassment in August 2009.

34.2a Following a thorough internal investigation34.2b the force’s professional standards directorate found no misconduct.

34.3a Mr Puddick was informed of that decision last December34.3b and had the right to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

34.4a I do not know whether he has pursued that course,34.4b but my hon. Friend might wish to contact him34.4c and help him in that regard.

34.5a We have a formal complaints procedure34.5b whereby the conduct of police forces can be properly investigated34.5c precisely to deal with situations34.5d in which people feel they have been improperly treated by the police.

34.6a Having the IPCC means that such complaints and police forces34.6b can be independently investigated34.6c quite separately from Government,34.6d as is proper,34.6e but there might be reasons why Mr Puddick has not taken that course.

Mr Burrowes:

35.1a I am grateful for the Minister’s response35.1b and I will certainly follow up the details of my constituent’s complaint.

35.2a My presumption is35.2b that the progress of his complaint35.2c was subject to the fact that proceedings were ongoing,35.2d but they have recently been concluded35.2e and he will now be able to pursue many avenues.

35.3a The problem he has probably encountered35.3b is that his complaint is not like usual complaints35.3c about how people have been treated in detention or on arrest,35.3d but is more of a systemic issue35.3e about an operational decision that was taken,35.3f and so he might find it harder to get to the truth.

35.4a I therefore invite the Minister to make inquiries35.4b into why, given the facts of the case,35.4c the decision about Operation Bohan was taken.

Nick Herbert:

36.1a My hon. Friend is seeking to draw me36.1b into precisely the sort of comment about individual investigations36.1c that I am prohibited from making.

36.2a Nevertheless, I will say36.2b that it strikes me that this case would merit an appeal to the IPCC.

36.3a I might be wrong about that36.3b and will ensure that I follow up the debate36.3c by sending him formal advice36.3d on whether that remains an option for Mr Puddick.

37.1a My hon. Friend referred to the involvement of counter-terrorist officers in the case,37.1b which the media also reported on.

37.2a I can confirm that the investigation was run by the force’s major investigation team,37.2b which, although it was set up primarily to deal with major crime,37.2c occasionally deals with cases outside its remit37.2d to relieve pressure on other departments within the force.

37.3a The team sits within the force’s serious crime and counter-terrorist directorate,37.3b which might explain the confusion37.3c and the suggestion37.3d that counter-terrorist officers were involved in the investigation.

38.1a I know that my hon. Friend will agree38.1b that, when the police receive an allegation of a crime,38.1c they should consider it properly.

38.2 Indeed, they are required within the rules set out to record it.

38.3a The offence of harassment can cause the victim great distress,38.3b and the police are committed to responding in a timely manner38.3c when they receive such reports.

38.4a My comments in this respect are not to be taken38.4b as an endorsement of the police action in this case,38.4c but I think that we would all agree with the general principle38.4d that it is proper for the police38.4e to respond to and investigate such claims.

39.1a The internet has hugely enriched our lives39.1b and every Member of the House is fully aware of its potency,39.1c but it can also be a useful tool39.1d for those seeking to abuse and intimidate their victims,39.1e and it is a source of particular concern to the Government39.1f that a new opportunity for crime has been created 39.1g through cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking and such harassment of victims.

39.2a The abuse can continue for long periods,39.2b with no refuge for the person on the receiving end of the harassment,39.2c and can involve a much bigger audience,39.2d with more people becoming accessories to the harassment39.2e by forwarding offensive messages and images,39.2g making it difficult to identify the perpetrator.

39.3a For all those reasons,39.3b the Government are very concerned about the growth of this form of criminality39.3c and are seeking to deal with it.

40.1a Let me be clear40.1b that we have no plans to block legal internet content or websites.

40.2a Our view on published material40.2b is that it is important to strike a balance40.2c between freedom of expression40.2d and protection of the public,40.2e and that it should be proportional to the potential harm that might be caused.

40.3a In other words,40.3b it is important that the action we take,40.3c and indeed the action of those who enforce the law,40.3d is proportionate,40.3e which is precisely the word my hon. Friend used.

40.4a We are making progress in this area40.4b and there will be a ministerial seminar next week40.4c on personal harm on the internet,40.4d which will focus on the two key themes of cyber-stalking and hate crime.

40.5a It is important40.5b that we continue to make progress in this area.

40.6a Nevertheless, I strongly agree with the principle of equality before the law,40.6b as my hon. Friend set out.

40.7a It is important40.7b that police forces in this country are impartial40.7c and act without fear or favour,40.7d and he is right to restate that principle.

41.1a My hon. Friend is correct to say41.1b that I am big on accountability,41.1c and so are the Government.

41.2a We seek to ensure41.2b that police forces are accountable —41.2c of course —41.2d to the law for their actions,41.2e and they are in the case before us.

41.3a I mentioned recourse to the IPCC,41.3b and should Mr Puddick believe that the police behaved unlawfully in his case,41.3c he also has recourse to legal action.

41.4a I make no comment on whether that is the case,41.4b but the police are not above the law.

42.1a The police should also be accountable for their actions,42.1b and we seek to strengthen the democratic oversight of policing,42.1c but that does not extend to interference in opera42.1d because that principle must remain.

42.2a We are, however,42.2b going to give directly elected police and crime commissioners42.2c an important role in the oversight of police complaints —42.2d not to receive complaints directly,42.2e because that will still be a matter for the IPCC,42.2f but to ensure that forces generally deal with complaints properly.

43.1a I regret that that measure43.1b will not be applicable to the City of London police,43.1c because it is the one force43.1d to which we will not be introducing43.1e directly elected police and crime commissioners,43.1f but I am sure that the force itself,43.1g and the authority that holds it to account,43.1h will watch carefully the developments in our legislation.

43.2a On the cost of the investigation,43.2b my hon. Friend cited the sum of £1 million.

43.3a I am not sure whether he thought that43.3b that was the cost of the police investigation43.3c and the Crown Prosecution Service investigation,43.3d but the City of London police state43.3e that the £1.5 million cost that was ascribed to the investigation,43.3f was very wide of the mark.

43.4a I am not able to respond to his suggested cost43.4b for the combined operation of the police and the CPS,43.4c but I am happy to ask43.4d that the City of London police and the CPS43.4e provide that information to my hon. Friend.

43.5a Importantly, the CPS would of course have had to agree43.5b to the charges that were brought before the courts43.5c and, in doing so,43.5d have taken the view that a prosecution was in the public interest,43.5e so the actions that were taken were a matter not just for the police,43.5f but for the CPS.

43.6a Without trespassing further on the detail of the case,43.6b I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the matter43.6c and, indeed, respect the fact43.6d that he has brought it to the attention of the House.

43.7a I hope he understands that I cannot interfere,43.7b but I hope also that I have provided some useful information.

Mr Burrowes:

44.1 I am grateful for the Minister’s response.

44.2a He will be aware,44.2b because I have raised the matter with him before,44.2c and agree44.2d that what is needed among other things in our justice system,44.2e is information.

44.3a Indeed, in the words of the Victims Commissioner,44.3b relentless information is a real driver of change,44.3c and of accountability,44.3d and one aspect of that is,44.3e the reporting of magistrates court cases,44.3f which often go unnoticed.

44.4a I have raised two examples,44.4b but in that area,44.4c as in others,44.4d the benefits of more information44.4e will raise the stakes on accountability,44.4f and ensure that Ministers are as aware as others,44.4g of whether there is a prevalence of such cases,44.4h and of the actions that could lead to criticism,44.4i and to operational changes.

45.1a I therefore ask the Minister to have an eye for that,45.1b as well as just to —

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Briefly.

Mr Burrowes:

46.1a I will just raise one other matter concerning internet crime,46.1b which is the subject of the debate.

46.2a I welcome ministerial involvement in the seminars on hate crime,46.2b which is a real concern.

46.3a There is a particular prevalence of anti-Semitism on the internet,46.3b and I know46.3c that Ministers are taking on work from the previous Government in that area.

Nick Herbert:

47.1 I strongly agree about the importance of transparency.

47.2a The criminal justice system is relatively opaque,47.2b but this week47.2c the Government have announced further moves to increase transparency.

47.3a One area in which we wish to do that is the criminal justice system,47.3b and I am working on such proposals47.3c because I believe that justice must be seen to be done.

47.4a I hope that my hon. Friend will take a continuing interest in that47.4b and will encourage us in our efforts.

48.1a I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting our action on hate crime,48.1a and I know that he understands the importance of dealing with it.

48.2a In respect of this case and the issues that my hon. Friend raises,48.2a it is very important that we and the law strike the appropriate balance.

48.3 Free speech is an important freedom48.3b that must be protected to the greatest extent possible,48.3c but it cannot be permitted if harm is done to others.

48.4a The law exists in order sometimes to curtail the operation of free speech48.4b where such harm may be done.

48.5 That is why we have a harassment law.

48.6a It is right that our law enforcement agencies focus on areas48.6b where people may be bullied, harassed or subject to intimidation and threats,48.6c and that includes through the new medium of the internet.

48.7a It is appropriate48.7b that our law enforcement agencies take action according to the laws48.7c that have been set out by Parliament.

48.8 It equally behoves those agencies to behave in a proper and proportionate manner.

More information on Zen's document layoutTime has great value,and government wastes time in massive amounts,generating acres of diarrhea documentation,in many different formats.

Much of it is very difficult to read -let alone fully understand -but you can reduce your suffering,and make the job very much easier.

Understanding documents fully,and having every fact at your fingertips,is vital if you are to succeed.

If you know your documents better than your opponent,you are able to instantly focus on any fact,and probably far faster than they can.

Facts you consider of importance,when reading beforehand,can be highlighted in a suitable colour with HTML,and can be instantly accessed by use of HTML links.

Many court cases only use a small percentage of available data,so being able to steal a march on your opponent,has real value.

Equally, you may have identified weak pointswithin your own case,for which you may have prepared answers to,but which you only use if required,stumping your opponent.

Instead of shuffling through files full of paper,it is far betterto have everything on a computeron carefully designed webpages,just a mouse-click away.

The paper originals can be there in reserve in A4 binders,and numbered in some convenient way,so that if there is any queryas to the accuracy of any webpage,the matter can be instantly settled.

With documents displayed in one standard format,with paragraphs and sentences numbered,cross-referencing is quick and simple,and your mind has one standard format to comprehend,instead of a confusing and conflicting paper chase.

Where one point in one documenthas a connection with another pointin either this document or another document,it is easy to put a link both ways.

( there is a link to this section from the top,and a link at the bottom of this section,back to the top ).

Zen's writing technique is unusual -he places one "chunk" of information on each line,so that the readers eyeis trained to pick up and understandone chunk of informationon each left-to-right eyeball movement.

This accelerates comprehension.

This is also of great advantage to Zen when he writes,as each line stands by itself,and must be as short as possible,which encourages brevity,and therefore, clarity.

When the medieval and primitive fear-based system finally goes,this kind of document system will be standard.

If anyone can use something like this,perhaps for litigation, or criminal defence,if you go to Zen's Start Menu,you will see how Zen developed the ideato create a narrative experience of evil government and police.

One or two files contain some interesting experiments,which took the concept to a new level,and which need further work -for which an incentive always helps!

If someone really needed legal document work done -and was willing to pay reasonably for it -perhaps because they intend to represent themselves in court -then Zen would be interested in developing the idea further.

Zen has acted as a MacKenzie's Friend in courts,and has himself successfully prosecuted a council solicitorunder the Public Order Act( Link - Solicitor convicted under the Public Order Act - Click BACK when done ),as well as numerous other occasions.

However, they are DOS command line programsfor computer programming enthusiasts -not Windows programs useable by anyone-and they need conversion to Windows( which I have never mastered,so I will need assistance ).

As lawyers cost an arm and a leg -hundreds of pounds an hour -hopefully someone will bung enough cash Zen's wayto fund the work required.

Once the document has been entered into a text file,the document must first be numbered in paragraphs.

Then each paragraph must be separated into sentences,and then each sentence into data chunks.

Separating each sentence into data chunks,is something of an artform.

Zen likes the idea of thousands of people,armed with the proper tools,cutting a swathe through bad government and bad police.

Having everything a mouse-click away,has huge advantages.

Both government and police are essential to a proper society,but what we suffer,is not fit for purpose.